A real apology

In Cook County, Illinois, the race for the Democratic nominee for state's attorney (pretty much the same thing as a district attorney in other places), is very narrow. The primary was held a week ago (Tuesday, March 19, 2024) and the mail-in ballots are still being counted. 

There's been some confusion on when the mail-in ballots were counted and when they should have been. Some ballots apparently were received the day before the actual primary day. The chair of the board chose to postpone counting those ballots, presumably because he believed counting them would have slowed the process and that those ballots probably wouldn't have determined the outcome of the race. In other words, he didn't think the race would be as close as it was.

Here is the Chicago Sun-Times quoting him:

"'I traded speed for accuracy in reporting out numbers this week as quickly as I could,' Bever [Election Board Chair] said. 'I truly regret this error on my part and for the confusion that it has caused the voters of Chicago.'"

Assuming there's nothing more to the context that the Sun-Times has left out, that's quite a good apology. Short, to the point, and taking responsibility for a decision that turned out to be wrong.  

I'm sometimes critical of demands for "real apologies" and of criticisms against alleged "non-apology apologies." The people who make those demands tend to be very selective in how they apply those demand, and they often don't practice what they preach. The alleged "non-apology apologies" are very often more sincere than they're given credit for. Or the same people calling for sincere apologies would denounce actually sincere apologies. Or the alleged "non-apology apologies" still serve a very useful, sometimes more useful purpose than a "real apology" would have been.

But it's refreshing to see a real apology when it's actually made.

IVF is different

[Note: I edited this post substantially on March 8, 2024]

You may have heard of the recent Alabama Supreme Court case that identifies embryos, created through the in-vitro fertilization process (IVF) and then frozen, as children. At least, that's how the Washington Post describes the decision [paywall]. I haven't read the actual case and am prepared for it to have said something a little different. But the gist appears to be that the court recognizes IVF embryos as human and states people can be sued for wrongful death if they mishandle the embryos.

With that decision comes the usual concern about the courts' ever stronger restrictions against abortion rights. I understand that concern. But I see an important distinction here. In cases of unwanted pregnancies, the zygote/embryo is enmeshed with the body of the woman. Whether it is a human life or not, its existence is so implicated with the woman's body, that it is a part of her body. 

I believe someone can accept that view and can believe that therefore the woman has the moral prerogative to abort and ought to have the legal right to do so--all the while believing, as I do, that life begins at conception. One can hold both those views consistently.

IVF is different.